Catholic priest whose style split NC mountain parish is leaving

[pianistclare]

I don’t know the majority of people don’t want it. It could just be that a very vocal, angry and demanding group don’t want it. It seems to me there is a certain generation that is intent on making the Catholic Church into a church more in the style of Protestant churches with a heavy emphasis on hymn singing and less formal liturgy.

I do ageee with your point about it being wise to be gradual. Then again I know a priest who approached it that way and was still run off.

OK, the majority of people HIRING musicians don’t want it.
The pew sitters can be (as I think we’ve seen here) can want and wish all they want. But unless a pastoral decision is made in favor of chant…it ain’t happenin.

I can tell you also, that I DID insert a chant during Lent for in place of an offertory hymn…people went ballistic. I “stole” from them the opportunity to sing their beloved hymns. And I’m talk OLD hymns, not Christian music off the radio, which I don’t ever use anyway.

I’ve not seen any parish in this Archdiocese that as supportive of Gregorian Chant on a regular basis.

 

[exnihilo]

I can tell you also, that I DID insert a chant during Lent for in place of an offertory hymn…people went ballistic. I “stole” from them the opportunity to sing their beloved hymns. And I’m talk OLD hymns, not Christian music off the radio, which I don’t ever use anyway.

Old hymn as in ‘Lord of the Dance’ or old as in ‘O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden’?

As much as I dislike most music at my parish I only ever compliment what I like, rather than complain about what I don’t like. Maybe there are others like me?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

While the parishioners definitely need to take a good long look in the mirror, ultimately pastors need to realize they can’t force things down people’s throats.

There’s enough ambiguity in the article that its indeed likely that many of the changes were needed or proper. But some of the ones listed are clearly a matter of taste rather than theology. A parish that has no interest in Gregorian chant should not have it forced upon them, it makes no sense.

As someone else mentioned, changes should not be sudden and overwhelming. Trust needs to be built, explanations provided, etc.

Pastors are ultimately there to minister to the community, not lord their personal style over the people. I’ve been in “liberal” parishes and I’ve been in “conservative” parishes and never had anything close to resembling the kinds of problems described.

 

[MaryT777]

Old hymn as in ‘Lord of the Dance’ or old as in ‘O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden’?

As much as I dislike most music at my parish I only ever compliment what I like, rather than complain about what I don’t like. Maybe there are others like me?

Yes there are. My family loves music and myself and my aunt tell the musicians at times during the year when they are preparing for things like Easter and Christmas that we appreciate their time and love their music.

I just wish people would not complain so much about things like music or the priest.

There is no way to please everyone. What are these musicians supposed to given the wide variety of tastes that are in particular parish?

May God Bless those that provide their service of music to our Churches. Clare that includes you!~

Mary

 

[billy15]

Anyway, you’ve failed to take my comments at face value. These parishioners are not Byzantine Catholics. And you should apply your own statements about the faith of the parishioners who left to the pastor who left.

I certainly did take your comments at face value. You said that Fr. Riehl is guilty of “clerical snobbery.” I think that charge is ridiculous.

And I understand these parishioners are not Byzantine Catholic. So what? These parishioners are hostile to a type of worship that is natural to all rites of the Church, East or West. Let’s look at the article you approvingly quoted:

While Francis regularly lambastes clericalism, with the famous injunction that pastoral shepherds should take on the smell of their sheep, the Charlotte diocese has instead been filled with the smell of incense, the sounds of Latin chant…

Other diocesan priests over 50 describe what they call a movement to take the diocese back to pre-Vatican II piety, with a focus on externals, such as elaborate vestments and liturgies concentrated on Latin chant and prayers.

First off, the focus is not “on externals”; such things are simply a part of our Catholic identity. The focus is on the Eucharist, as can be seen if you listen to Fr. Riehl’s homilies, especially the most recent one.

Second. replace “Latin chant” with “polyphonic chant”, and those sentences I quoted accurately define the Byzantine Rite. Incense wafts throughout the church very often. The vestments of Byzantine Catholic priests are always ornate, decorative, and beautiful. At least some of the prayers at each Divine Liturgy are said in Old Slavonic or the Slavic tongue of that particular Church. Here’s the point I’m trying to make:

If what is being described in the article is a negative attribute of the legitimate traditions of the Latin rite, how can it be positive and beneficial in the Byzantine or Syrian rites? If chant, incense, ad orientem worship, and elaborate vestments are things to be avoided in the Latin Rite, should they not be avoided in the entire Universal Church, including the Eastern Rites? These “exiled” parishioners see these things as “out of step” with Pope Francis.

Well then, if some Latin Rite priests and laity are out of step with Pope Francis and Vatican II (as these practices are called “pre-Vatican II piety” in the article) for exercising these practices, then it follows that not only the entire Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is out of step with Pope Francis and Vatican II, but all 14 particular Churches of the Byzantine Rite are out of step! That’s pretty serious, no? External signs like elaborate vestments and chant are simply “appearances of reverence”. If the Latin Rite has purged them, then so should the Byzantine Rite so that the entire Universal Church conforms to the spirit of Vatican II, by this logic.

And this is why I think what these “exiled” parishioners are saying is not heroic or laudable, but absolutely ridiculous. These traditions have not been purged. They’ve been made optional, and many don’t like opting back in to the traditions that have developed in the Latin Rite. Similar traditions in the Byzantine Rite are simply a default, just as it was a default in the Latin Rite only a few decades ago.

As Pope Benedict said, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. " These exiled parishioners apparently do think such things are harmful and should not be preserved, and since they are not sacred (in their view), they would logically believe that such practices that are still carried out in the Byzantine Rite carry the same traits of “clerical snobbery” and should be considered harmful. Because if they are not inherently harmful, then why are such things permitted in the Byzantine Rite as a beneficial aid to worship, but not seen as beneficial when they are done in the Latin Rite? This is the hard question that those who oppose “restorationists”, as they call them, need to answer.

In addition, I think it’s unfortunate that the pastor had to take a sabbatical over this, and I wish he would’ve had a bit more fortitude to stay, but to compare and apply my own statements about the faith of those parishioners that left to the pastor’s faith would be inaccurate. Fr. Riehl is not leaving the Church. He is also not disobeying his bishop as several of the exiled members did when they (for a time) kept holding mass at Living Waters Retreat House. He has also not left the Church for Methodism as some of those people have. The comments regarding those parishioners in no way apply to Fr. Riehl… that’s why I didn’t apply those statements to him.

Also, I never quoted that article from Church Militant. I’m not saying Zaffrann’s claim you posted is accurate. But NCR, in a fairly balanced article, did quote Zaffrann in a earlier article from 2015:

Liturgically, the parish has improved, Zaffrann told NCR. “My impression is that the Mass is better,” he said. “It’s very humble, reverent and solemn. It brings respect to the Eucharist.”

In reading unbiased news reports, Fr. Riehl seems like a great priest who was trying to lead his flock closer to God.

 

[pnewton]

I find these two statements interesting.

They don’t like that there’s Gregorian chant, but they want what Vatican II taught? Have they not actually read what Vatican II teaches and asked us to implement?

It is a mistake to rely on the news article. For the example you quoted, the article does not make it clear if Gregorian chant replaced some of the music, some of the parts, are all of the music exclusively. The same claim could be made against me for using chant for the Mass parts during Lent. Or it could be all the music was replaced with chant (which is not what Vatican II teaches, btw)

The point is, we do not know enough to be outraged at either side. I guess you could say the bucks stops with the priest, as he was the priest, but that is not the same as actual fault.

 

[billy15]

It is a mistake to rely on the news article. For the example you quoted, the article does not make it clear if Gregorian chant replaced some of the music, some of the parts, are all of the music exclusively. The same claim could be made against me for using chant for the Mass parts during Lent. Or it could be all the music was replaced with chant (which is not what Vatican II teaches, btw)

The point is, we do not know enough to be outraged at either side. I guess you could say the bucks stops with the priest, as he was the priest, but that is not the same as actual fault.

I agree, to an extent. If it’s true that Fr. Riehl was denying parishioners the Anointing of the Sick or not visiting them, that would be big cause for concern. But only the NCR has reported on that. Also, it’s been made clear that some left the entire Church due to the changes that Fr. Riehl brought him. If that was the tipping point for these people to actually leave the Church, then it would seem on its face they had more a problem with the traditions of the Church than Fr. Riehl himself. How one’s faith could be so flimsy is very saddening. At least some of those people have regrouped at another location and still profess the Catholic faith.

But to bring some balance to both sides that have reported on this story, here are some things I’ve noticed while looking at the parish’s social media accounts and their own website. In terms of wrongdoing ,and lack of substantial evidence of that wrongdoing I think Fr. Riehl should be given the benefit of the doubt:

Confessions were heard twice a week, two different novenas were held weekly, Eucharistic Adoration was available weekly, and the EF of the Mass was made available on Wednesday nights. There are hardly any parishes that regularly offer the Sacrifice of the Mass on any weeknight. He made a parish mission available this past year for his flock. He also brought the International Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Fatima to Waynesville for a special devotion. It’s a shame to see this man ripped on NCR and elsewhere. There’s a side of the story that NCR and Church Militant haven’t told. When I look at the unbiased articles and the Facebook page of this parish, I can see that this man was at least **trying **to do what he was called to do: be a pastor of souls.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

catholicnewsherald.com/images/djmediatools/79-fatimawaynesville/waynesville_07_copy.jpg

catholicnewsherald.com/images/djmediatools/79-fatimawaynesville/waynesville_13_copy.jpg

 

[Dorothy]

I find these two statements interesting.

They don’t like that there’s Gregorian chant, but they want what Vatican II taught? Have they not actually read what Vatican II teaches and asked us to implement?

Methinks that somebody’s never actually read the Vatican II documentation.

I agree that we need to start reading and implementing what the Vatican II documentation really said.

 

[pnewton]

When I look at the unbiased articles and the Facebook page of this parish, I can see that this man was at least **trying **to do what he was called to do: be a pastor of souls.

That is one thing I would never question. Even if this was the “fault” of this priest, I would never doubt that he had the heart of a shepherd, or that wherever God leads him, this experience might one day help him be a better shepherd.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I certainly did take your comments at face value. You said that Fr. Riehl is guilty of “clerical snobbery.” I think that charge is ridiculous.

The movement, of which Fr. Reihl seems to be a part of, that being the movement of a reform of the reform, is what I called clerical snobbery. The pope has spoken against it may times.

If what is being described in the article is a negative attribute of the legitimate traditions of the Latin rite, how can it be positive and beneficial in the Byzantine or Syrian rites? If chant, incense, ad orientem worship, and elaborate vestments are things to be avoided in the Latin Rite, should they not be avoided in the entire Universal Church, including the Eastern Rites? These “exiled” parishioners see these things as “out of step” with Pope Francis.

Well then, if some Latin Rite priests and laity are out of step with Pope Francis and Vatican II (as these practices are called “pre-Vatican II piety” in the article) for exercising these practices, then it follows that not only the entire Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is out of step with Pope Francis and Vatican II, but all 14 particular Churches of the Byzantine Rite are out of step! That’s pretty serious, no? External signs like elaborate vestments and chant are simply “appearances of reverence”. If the Latin Rite has purged them, then so should the Byzantine Rite so that the entire Universal Church conforms to the spirit of Vatican II, by this logic.

Here is where I think that you have not taken my comments at face value. I, nor do I think the parishioners of St. John’s parish, have said that there is anything negative or bad about gregorian chant, Latin Masses or anything like that. What’s bad is the reverse…thinking that the way this parish was before Fr. Reihl showed up was bad or negative - at least he thought so and tried to change the way the parishioners like to celebrate.

You brought up the Byzantine Mass, saying ‘what would these people think of a Byzantine Mass’. I said, who cares they are not Byzantine Catholics. I doubt if they think the Byzantine Mass is “negative”.

 

[Wesrock]

I can tell you also, that I DID insert a chant during Lent for in place of an offertory hymn…people went ballistic. I “stole” from them the opportunity to sing their beloved hymns. And I’m talk OLD hymns, not Christian music off the radio, which I don’t ever use anyway.

It saddens me that feedback is given like this. It’s incomprehensible to me. I don’t even mean chant vs hymn vs contemporary, I just can’t fathom getting so upset or defensive over such a temporary thing.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Here is where I think that you have not taken my comments at face value. I, nor do I think the parishioners of St. John’s parish, have said that there is anything negative or bad about gregorian chant, Latin Masses or anything like that. What’s bad is the reverse…thinking that the way this parish was before Fr. Reihl showed up was bad or negative - at least he thought so and tried to change the way the parishioners like to celebrate.

So Fr. Reihl’s alleged “problem” was that he disapproved of how some Catholics worship?

The movement, of which Fr. Reihl seems to be a part of, that being the movement of a reform of the reform, is what I called clerical snobbery. The pope has spoken against it may times.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

It is not merciful of you to label an entire movement, with legitimate liturgical preferences, “clericalist” or “snobbery” or to suggest that it had been somehow condemned by the Pope. All of those in my neck of the woods following the “reform of the reform” movement are young laypeople with families.

 

[exnihilo]

The movement, of which Fr. Reihl seems to be a part of, that being the movement of a reform of the reform, is what I called clerical snobbery. The pope has spoken against it may times.

What is clerical and what is snobby about it? I don’t think it is just clerics who appreciate a certain way of worshiping. I don’t think it is snobby to have a preference. And this is not all a matter of taste and opinion. Some ways of worshipping are actually better than others.

 

[billy15]

The movement, of which Fr. Reihl seems to be a part of, that being the movement of a reform of the reform, is what I called clerical snobbery. The pope has spoken against it may times.

Thanks for clarifying. Stat makes a good point though:

Stat_Crux:

It is not merciful of you to label an entire movement, with legitimate liturgical preferences, “clericalist” or “snobbery” or to suggest that it had been somehow condemned by the Pope.

Pope Francis has condemned those that are rigid many times. I see no evidence of Fr. Reihl being rigid or guilty of clericalism.

Also, “the reform of the reform” is a valid liturgical movement, as even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI mentioned it often. Cardinal Robert Sarah has mentioned the “reform of the reform” approvingly on two recent occasions. He said this in his 2016 London address, where he was maligned by many (such as several columnists at the National Catholic Reporter) for asking pastors to implement ad orientem worship in the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, emphases mine:

I have spoken of the fact that some of the reforms introduced following the Council may have been put together according to the spirit of the times and that there has been an increasing amount of critical study by faithful sons and daughters of the Church asking whether what was in fact produced truly implemented the aims of the Constitution, or whether in reality they went beyond them. This discussion sometimes takes place under the title of a “reform of the reform”…

I do not think that we can dismiss the possibility or the desirability of an official reform of the liturgical reform, because its proponents make some important claims in their attempt to be faithful to the Council’s insistence in article 23 of the Constitution “that sound tradition…be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress” and that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”

Indeed, I can say that when I was received in audience by the Holy Father last April, Pope Francis asked me to study the question of a reform of a reform and of how to enrich the two forms of the Roman rite. This will be a delicate work and I ask for your patience and prayers. But if we are to implement *Sacrosanctum Concilium *more faithfully, if we are to achieve what the Council desired, this is a serious question which must be carefully studied and acted on with the necessary clarity and prudence.

And from his address on the 10th Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum just a few months ago:

Many priests… are conscious of working for the liturgical renewal, of contributing their own efforts to the “liturgical movement” that we were just talking about, in other words, in reality, to** this mystical and spiritual renewal that is therefore missionary in character, which was intended by the Second Vatican Council, to which Pope Francis is vigorously calling us.** The liturgy must therefore always be reformed so as to be more faithful to its mystical essence.

But most of the time, this “reform” that replaced the genuine “restoration” intended by the Second Vatican Council was carried out in a superficial spirit and on the basis of only one criterion: to suppress at all costs a heritage that must be perceived as totally negative and outmoded so as to excavate a gulf between the time before and the time after the Council. Now it is enough to pick up the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy again and to read it honestly, without betraying its meaning, to see that the true purpose of the Second Vatican Council was not to start a reform that could become the occasion for a break with Tradition, but quite the contrary, to rediscover and to confirm Tradition in its deepest meaning.

In fact, what is called “the reform of the reform”, which perhaps ought to be called more precisely “the mutual enrichment of the rites”, to use an expression from the Magisterium of Benedict XVI, is a primarily spiritual necessity. And it quite obviously concerns the two forms of the Roman rite.

As we can see, both Pope Benedict AND Pope Francis are on board with the “reform of the reform” (or “the mutual enrichment of rites”) as Cardinal Sarah describes above, and as it appears that Fr. Reihl was implementing. Many people were just fine celebrating the way they wanted prior to the liturgical reforms in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Yet the parishioners were told to change their ways because the traditional way of doing things was too “restrictive” and it was “bad or negative”. So yea, I guess you could call Fr. Reihl a “restorationist”, as the NCR like to call him in a pejorative sense. But I don’t use that term in a pejorative sense here; I say kudos to for Fr. Reihl for taking action on something Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict (and even Pope Francis as evidenced above) called attention to.

 

[billy15]

Here is where I think that you have not taken my comments at face value. I, nor do I think the parishioners of St. John’s parish, have said that there is anything negative or bad about gregorian chant, Latin Masses or anything like that. What’s bad is the reverse…thinking that the way this parish was before Fr. Reihl showed up was bad or negative - at least he thought so and tried to change the way the parishioners like to celebrate.

Perhaps you haven’t directly, but the parishioners have said so. Look at what was written in NCR’s Dec. 8th article:

In their petition, dated March 9, [2017] signees say that Riehl has… “openly defamed the Second Vatican Council” while substituting popular hymns with Gregorian chant.

The portion in quotations come from the parishioners. Shockingly (OK, maybe not), these parishioners think that including Gregorian chant “defames” Vatican II since popular hymns aren’t being used at certain times. Ironic, as popular hymns are the substitution for the Mass Propers which are sung in Gregorian chant. If that’s not saying anything negative about Gregorian chant, that it’s “defamatory”, then I don’t know what is.

All Fr. Reihl is guilty of doing, as far as I can tell (while dismissing some of the sensationalism from NCRs stories on the subject) is of going back to the default, the Propers of the Mass, and having them chanted in Latin. He’s also guilty of wearing a biretta, beautiful vestments, and instituting an EF Mass every Wednesday night. It’s no secret that many people, as Cardinal Sarah mentioned in my post above, do see these things as signs of “a heritage that must be perceived as totally negative and outmoded”.

1Lord1faith:

You brought up the Byzantine Mass, saying ‘what would these people think of a Byzantine Mass’. I said, who cares they are not Byzantine Catholics. I doubt if they think the Byzantine Mass is “negative”.

Right… who cares if they’re not Byzantine Catholics? The point I made still stands. We’ve already seen that these parishioners that signed the petition to Bishop Jurgis believe that restoring Gregorian chant to St. John’s Masses is “defamatory”. They also complained in the petition that “funerals dispensed with any discussion of the deceased, with homilies focused on the church doctrine of purgatory.” As if to do so were a bad thing! Parishioners were also quoted as saying “It’s the Dark Ages for me. It wasn’t like that when I moved here”, and, “They want to go back to the 16th century.” I don’t think they’re using the “Dark Ages” or “16th century” in a positive sense here, do you?

The more we dig into this, it’s clear that these parishioners of the “church in exile” have a problem with the authentic traditions of the Church. So when certain people such as these speak this way, and have a disdain for traditional practices of the Church, specifically in the Latin Rite, I ask this: why wouldn’t they also have a disdain for the same practices in the Byzantine or Syrian Rites of the Catholic Church? If they abhor ad orientem worship in the Latin rite, wouldn’t they logically abhor it in the Byzantine Rite? If they see the addition of polyphonic chant in the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite as having “openly defamed the Second Vatican Council”, having a negative perception of Gregorian chant, wouldn’t they also perceive polyphonic chant in the Byzantine Rite of also having a defamatory character?

But if they *don’t *have this negative view of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, as you contended, then my question from earlier still stands:

If such practices (chant, incense, ad orientem worship, elaborate vestments) are not inherently harmful, then why are such things permitted in the Byzantine Rite as a beneficial aid to worship, but not seen as beneficial when they are done in the Latin Rite? This is the hard question that those who oppose “restorationists”, as they call them, need to answer.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Thanks for clarifying. Stat makes a good point though:

Pope Francis has condemned those that are rigid many times. I see no evidence of Fr. Reihl being rigid or guilty of clericalism.

Also, “the reform of the reform” is a valid liturgical movement, as even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI mentioned it often. Cardinal Robert Sarah has mentioned the “reform of the reform” approvingly on two recent occasions. He said this in his 2016 London address, where he was maligned by many (such as several columnists at the National Catholic Reporter) for asking pastors to implement ad orientem worship in the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, emphases mine:

And from his address on the 10th Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum just a few months ago:

As we can see, both Pope Benedict AND Pope Francis are on board with the “reform of the reform” (or “the mutual enrichment of rites”) as Cardinal Sarah describes above, and as it appears that Fr. Reihl was implementing. Many people were just fine celebrating the way they wanted prior to the liturgical reforms in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Yet the parishioners were told to change their ways because the traditional way of doing things was too “restrictive” and it was “bad or negative”. So yea, I guess you could call Fr. Reihl a “restorationist”, as the NCR like to call him in a pejorative sense. But I don’t use that term in a pejorative sense here; I say kudos to for Fr. Reihl for taking action on something Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict (and even Pope Francis as evidenced above) called attention to.

Pope Francis: There will be no ‘reform of the reform’ of the liturgy.

He insisted that the Second Vatican Council and its “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”“must be carried forward as they are” and declared furthermore that “to speak of ‘the reform of the reform’ is an error!”

Probing further, Father Spadaro asked whether “apart from those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of custom or devotion,” the desire for this rite “could also express something else.”

Francis responded: “I ask myself this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind persons who are too young to have experienced the preconciliar liturgy but who nevertheless want it. At times, I find myself in front of persons who are very rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: How come such rigidity?” And when one “digs” deeper, he said, one discovers that “this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, or at times something else…. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”

americamagazine.org/faith/2016/12/06/pope-francis-there-will-be-no-reform-reform-liturgy

 

[ARSpade]

Pope Francis: There will be no ‘reform of the reform’ of the liturgy.

He insisted that the Second Vatican Council and its “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”“must be carried forward as they are” and declared furthermore that “to speak of ‘the reform of the reform’ is an error!”

Pope Francis is right. It’s just too bad that the parishioners in question here are so ignorant of Vatican II that they couldn’t see that their Pastor was just trying to implement what the council actually put in place. It seems like many Catholics have never bothered to read the council documents, which is just so sad, especially when it comes to Sacrosanctum concilium

 

[ctb95]

On the priest’s part, it was probably a mistake to fire the music director. Also, I don’t know how quickly the priest introduced these changes, but they should be done gradually and the parishioners should be catechized about why the changes were being made. Maybe he did this, maybe he didn’t.

That being said, everyone (myself included) has their own opinions about the liturgy. If I’m not a fan of the way a certain priest says mass, I deal with it. These parishioners need to stop whining and let their pastor do his job. Their arrogance and sense of entitlement is astounding.

Also, when people cry “Vatican II,” they have no idea what they’re talking about. I’m sure they’d be surprised to see what Vatican II actually says about Latin and Gregorian Chant.

 

[billy15]

]Pope Francis: There will be no ‘reform of the reform’ of the liturgy.

He insisted that the Second Vatican Council and its “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”“must be carried forward as they are” and declared furthermore that “to speak of ‘the reform of the reform’ is an error!”

Probing further, Father Spadaro asked whether “apart from those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of custom or devotion,” the desire for this rite “could also express something else.”

Francis responded: “I ask myself this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind persons who are too young to have experienced the preconciliar liturgy but who nevertheless want it. At times, I find myself in front of persons who are very rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: How come such rigidity?” And when one “digs” deeper, he said, one discovers that “this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, or at times something else…. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”

I’m well aware of Pope Francis’ comments here. Author and editor of the Catholic World report, Carl E. Olson had the following to say in an essay regarding the same selection:

Much could be said about the the excerpt above, **but I’ll first note, in fairness, that the full context of the remarks isn’t known and the remarks are apparently not official translations. **That said, it’s hard to not be disappointed, or even troubled, by the Holy Father’s comments and approach. And there are a couple of deep ironies involved. One of them is that Francis insists strongly in the need to close to the people and their problems, but then, in remarking on why some young people (and plenty of older people as well) would be attracted to the “old Latin Mass”, gives every appearance of not having really been close to any of the young people in question.

I don’t attend the Extraordinary Form (EF), but I know several people who do, including many younger folks, and I have talked to them at length about the EF and the Ordinary Form. To respond to these young people and their motives with shallow neo-Freudian dismissals comes off as both unfair and uncharitable.

I noticed that in the America Magazine story, Fr. Frederico Lombardi reported this exchange:

It is worth noting that on the day Pope Francis spoke with Father Spadaro, he also received in private audience Cardinal Sarah, who has emerged as the standard bearer of those who are pushing for a “reform of the reform…

Father Lombardi denied that new liturgical directives would be introduced in Advent and asked that the expression “reform of the reform” be avoided in referring to the liturgy. He revealed that Cardinal Sarah “expressly agreed to all this” in his meeting with the pope.

This fits in with what Cardinal Sarah said at his address earlier this year for the 10th anniversary of SP:

what is called “the reform of the reform”,** which perhaps ought to be called more precisely “the mutual enrichment of the rites”**… is a primarily spiritual necessity.

I think what we see here is merely a matter of semantics. Fr. Lombardi made clear that the Pope does not want the term “reform of the reform” used. Cardinal Sarah agreed, and we can see that he was on board with what the Pope said, because he began referring to the “reform of the reform” as “the mutual enrichment of the rites”. That term is not as charged as the other, but it’s the same thing. It’s the same liturgical movement that Cardinal Sarah talked about in both of the addresses I previously posted. But Pope Francis would rather the Cardinal go about describing it in different terms.

So yes, I do believe Pope Francis is on board with “the mutual enrichment of the rites”, as evidenced by Cardinal Sarah’s own testimony, but the Pope would rather not call it the “reform of the reform”.

I would love to see an actual translation of that book by Fr. Spadaro though, but I haven’t seen one anywhere. Hopefully in due time so we can understand more about what exactly Pope Francis said in context.

 

[pnewton]

Pope Francis is right. It’s just too bad that the parishioners in question here are so ignorant of Vatican II that they couldn’t see that their Pastor was just trying to implement what the council actually put in place

Again, we do not know this. If he was introducing Gregorian chant, that might be true. If he went to chant exclusively, it might not be true.